Karnataka High Court
Smt. Susheelamma vs The Secretary on 16 September, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36950
RSA No. 1522 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1522 OF 2023 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
W/O LATE M. NANJUNADASWAMY,
RESIDING AT 157,
1ST MIN ROAD,
PARVATHI NILAYA,
THRIVENI NAGRA,
T. NARASIPURA TOWN,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 571 124.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Digitally signed
by PARLIAMENTARY BHAVAN,
SHARADAVANI
B NEW DELHI - 110 001
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF POST,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE SUPERINTENDED OF POST OFFICE
NANJANGUD DIVISION,
NANJANGUD - 571 124.
4. HEAD POST MASTER
KOLLEGAL POST OFFICE
KOLLEGAL - 571 301
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36950
RSA No. 1522 of 2023
HC-KAR
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
5. THE POST MASTER
T. NARASIPURA POST OFFICE,
T. NARASIPURA - 571 124.
6. SMT MANJULA
C/O JAYARATHNA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
7. SMT JAYARATHNA
W/O LATE NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE
RESIDING AT O.P. MALAPPAPURAM,
KOLLEGALA - 571 301
8. SMT. VASANTHAKUMARI
W/O LATE RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TAGARAPURA VILLAGE,
KOLLEGALA TALUK - 571 301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RESHMA K.T, CGC FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.06.2023 PASSED IN
RA NO.3/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, T.
NARASIPURA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.01.2020 PASSED IN OS
NO.259/2010 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
T.NARASIPURA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:36950
RSA No. 1522 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Reshma K. T., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
2. Plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal claiming that she is the second wife and therefore, she is entitled for the pensionary benefits of deceased M. Nanjundaswamy.
3. Suit on due contest, came to be dismissed on the ground that the pensionary rules would not permit the second wife to claim the pension.
4. Rule 50 and 51 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules are discussed by the Trial Court in the categorical terms while deciding issue Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
-4-NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023 HC-KAR
5. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.3/2020 challenging the validity of the judgment of the Trial Court.
6. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and carried out a detailed discussion as what is the legal position in paragraph Nos.37 to 42 and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff.
7. For ready reference, paragraph Nos.37 to 42are culled out hereunder:
37. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into force on 18.05.1955. Hence, this Act governs the deceased, the plaintiff and the said G.S. Mariyamma. It is a condition for a valid Hindu marriage that the parties to a marriage should not have a living spouse at the time of marriage as per Section 5 (i) of the Act. If the said condition is violated, then such marriage performed in violation of such conditions becomes void marriage.
Thus, the wife who is become the party to the said marriage does not get the legal status as the first wife gets. However, the children of such marriage become legitimate children in view of the provision of Section 16 of the Act.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023 HC-KAR
38. Therefore, the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased. In this regard, the finding of the trial court is also correct. The trial court has further held that the plaintiff not being the legally wedded wife of the deceased is not entitled to the death benefits and the pension of the deceased. But learned counsel for the plaintiff has mainly relied upon the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 and argued that the living widow is entitled to the pension as per the said rules. He has further argued that the said G.S. Mariyamma died in 1990 and she died without living any right to her children. Therefore, the defendants No.6 to 8 are also not entitled to the death benefits and pension of the deceased.
39. I have gone through the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. They apply to the case on hand since the deceased was an employee in the department of Post. It is clear from Rule 54 of Family Pension of the said Rules that the pension is to be paid on priority basis. The term of family is defined therein. Accordingly, the widow/widows or widower, unmarried son, unmarried daughter, dependent parents and dependent disabled siblings come under the said family.
40. Rule 54 (7) of the said Rules states that where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to them in equal shares. In the present case, the first wife of the deceased died long back. The second wife of the deceased (Plaintiff) is alive. Now the question is whether she is entitled to the death benefits and pension of the deceased under the said Rule or not.
41. The above Rules govern the retirement and death benefit including the pension of the government -6- NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023 HC-KAR employees. Likewise, the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 govern the conditions of services of the government employees. Rule 21 of the said Rules states that no government servant shall enter into or contact a marriage with a person having a spouse living and no government servant having a spouse living shall enter into or contact a marriage with any person. The proviso to the said Rule empowers the Central Government to permit a government servant to enter into or contact such marriage.
42. In the present case, there is no any document on record to show that the deceased took the permission of the Central Government before marrying the plaintiff. Hence, it is clear violation of the said Rule. When there is violation of the said Rule and when the second marriage of the deceased with the plaintiff is null and void in view of implication of Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, then the plaintiff cannot claim the benefit of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. In other words, she cannot claim the death benefits and pension of the deceased.
8. Being further aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court, on the following grounds and raising substantial questions of law:
Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that in view of the death of Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy, even if the claim of the children of Smt. G. S. Mariyamma is accepted, in view of her -7- NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023 HC-KAR death on 30.07.1990, the marriage of the Plaintiff with Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy is regularized and cumulative reading of oral and documentary evidence clearly establishes the fact that she is the legally wedded wife of Sri. Late M. Nanjundaswamy. This fact the Trial Court in Para No.27 of the Judgment, in view of the Nomination made in favour of Smt. G. S. Mariyamma and the Defendant No.6, the Plaintiff is not entitled for pensioner benefits and she is not the legally wedded wife of Sri. Late M. Nanjundaswamy. Even though both the Courts below given a signing that the Plaintiff is the wife but not legally wedded wife of the deceased Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy.
Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that on the death of First Wife Smt. G. S. Mariyamma (not admitted) the Plaintiff is entitled for pensioner benefits as she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy.
Both the Courts below have wrongly interpreted Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is having no effect in view of the death of Smt. G. S. Mariyamma on 31.07.1990 and she predeceased Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy who died on 09.11.2009.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023 HC-KAR Both the Courts below have falled to take note of the fact that as per Section 50(6) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Pension Rules Family in relation to Government Services wife including second wife of Male Government Servant. Even both the Courts below have failed to interpret Rule 54(7) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which also stated that, in case a deceased Government Servant leaves behind more than one widow or widows, then family pension is payable to the widows in equal shares.
Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that Defendant Nos.6 to 8 have not adduced any evidence to corroborate the Written Statement filed by them. Without any proof, both the Courts have wrongly arrived at a conclusion that factum of marriage with the deceased is proved.
Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that Nomination will not give absolute right in favour of the Nominee under the law. Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that in view of Smt. G. S. Mariyamma predeceased Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy, the Plaintiff is entitled for pensioner benefits. Both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that based on the Nomination exclusive right cannot be claimed by the Nominee.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023 HC-KAR Both the Courts below have wrongly arrived at a conclusion that the Plaintiff is the Second Wife. Both the Courts below have failed to comply the law pertaining to pension contained in Rule 54(7) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Both the Courts below have erroneously applied Hindu Marriage Act and Rule 21 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, both the Courts below have erred in dismissing the Suit and Appeal respectively, despite the Plaintiff Appeal is proved her case and despite she is entitled for the relief of declaration and pensioner benefits that was illegally denied by both the Courts below.
SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW:
(a) Whether both the courts below have erred in dismissing the Suit/Appeal despite the Appellant has proved that she is the legally wedded wife of Sri. Late M. Nanjundaswamy and entitled for pensioner benefits?
(b) Whether both the courts below have misinterpreted the provisions related to pension as contained in Rule 54(7) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972?
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023 HC-KAR
(c) Whether both the Courts below have misinterpreted Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act and thereby illegally denied the benefits of the Appellant?
(d) Whether both the courts below have failing to take note of the fact as to effect all benefits on death of Nominee viz. Smt. G. S. Mariyamma during life time of Sri. M. Nanjundaswamy?
(e) Even both the Courts below have failed to exercised power under order 7 rule 7 C.P.C. and would have moulded the relief?
9. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that both the Courts have not understood the scope and ambit of the relevant provisions especially the Rules and did not properly appreciate the fact that the second wife is also entitled for the pensionary benefits and as such, the very interpretation of Rule 54 (7) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 needs to be adjudicated in the appeal which is a pure question of law and sought for admitting the appeal.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023 HC-KAR
10. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments
11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously especially Rule 54 (7) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
12. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court dealt in extenso about the said aspect of the matter and also taken note of the fact that the second wife is not entitled to claim the pensionary benefits and has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
13. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal memorandum much less the second substantial question of law.
14. Accordingly, the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36950 RSA No. 1522 of 2023 HC-KAR ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53 CT: BHK